Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-11-03

|
will be deprived OF their lives with
out due process of law" We are
therefore confined in this case to the
rulings on the challenges to the
Jurors who actually sat on the trial
of these there were but two, Theo
dore Denker and II. +. Sanford, the
latter being called and sworn after al
the peremptory challenges OF the de-
PENDANTS had been exhausted.
AJURoR's REQUIREMENTS.
At the trial the court constructed
the statute to mean that although a
Juror called as a juryman may have
formed an opinion based upon rumors
or upon newspaper statements but has
expressed no opinion as to the truth
of the newspaper statement, he il
still qualified as a juror, if he states
that he can fairly and impartially rem
der a verdict thereon in accordance
with the law and the evidence, and the
court. shall be satisfied with the truth
of such statements. 1t is. not test
question whether Juror will have an
opinion which he has formed from
newspapers changed by the evil
dence, but whether his verdict will
be based upon the account which may
here be given by witnesses under oath.
NOT AN UNUSUAL RULE.
The rule Of the State of Illinois as
it was construed by the trial Court, is
not materially different from that
which has been adopted by Courts in
many of the States without Legislative
action. Without pursuing this sub
ject further, it is sufficient to say that
We agree with the Supreme Court of
Illinois in the opinion that the statute
as on its face, construed by that Court
is not repugnant to Section 8, Article
2, of the Constitution, that the State
shall guarantee to an accused party
in every criminal prosecution a
speedy trial by an important jury OF
the County or District in which the
ofense is alleged to have been COM
mitted.
"NoT OPEN TO OBJECTION.
AS this is substantially the pro-
visions OF the Constitution of the
United States, on which the petition
els now rely, it follows that even il
their position to the operation and
effect Of that Constitution is correct,
the statute is not open to the objec-
ton which is made against it. The
Court then reviewed fully the pro.
ceedings of the State Court in the ex-
animation of Jurors Denker and San
ford and sustained the rulings OF
Judge Gary in the matter.
THE sELF-TEsTIMoNY PLEA.
The Court then stated: 1--WE come
now to the consideration that defend.
ant Spies was compelled by the Court
to be witness against himself, and
voluntarily offered himself as a wit
ness on his own behalf, and by so
doing he became bound to submit
himself to proper cross-examination.
The complaint is that he was required
on cross-examination to state whether
he had received certain letter which
was shown, purporting to have been
written by Johann Most and addressed
to him, and upon his saying that he
had. the Court allowed the letter to
be read in evidence against him.
FUTILE CLAIM.
This, it is claimed, was not proper
Gro DISCRIMINATION. 1t is not intended
that the subject to which the cross
examination related was not pointed
to the issue, and whether the cross
examination must be confined to mat
ters pertinent to the testimony in
chief or may be extended to matters in
issue, is certainly question of State
law in the Courts OF the State, and
not OF Federal law.
AS TO "sEARcH AND SEIZURE"
Something has been said in the ar
gument about the alleged unreasonable
search and seizure of papers and prop
erty of some OF the defendants, and
their use in evidence on the trial of
the case. Special reference is made
in this connection to letter of Most's,
about which Spies was cross-exam-
ined, but we have not been referred to
any part OF the record in which it ap-
pears, that the objection was made to
the use of evidence on that account.
THE OBJECTION MADE TOO LATE.
Even though the court was wrong in
saying that it did not appear that the
Most letter was one Of the papers al
leging seizure, it still remains uncon-
tradicted, not that an objection was
made in the trial court to its admis-
sion ON that account. To give us
jurisdiction under that section
it must appear that such an OBJ
lection was made. Under No. 109 Of
the Revised Statutes, the question
whether the letter obtained as claimed
would have been competent evidence
is not before us, and, therefore, no
foundation is laid under this objection
for the exercise OF Jurisdiction.
RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS.
As to the suggestion by counsel for
the petitioners Spies and Fielden that
Spies, having been born in Germany.
and Fielden in Great Britain, they
have been denied by the decision OF
the court below the rights guaranteed
to them by the treaties between the
United States and their respective
countries, it is sufficient to say that no
such questions were made and decided
in either OF the courts below and they
cannot be raised in this court for the
first time. We have not been referred
to any treaty, neither are we aware OF
any under which such a question
could be raised, being OF opinion that
the Federal questions presented by
counsel for the petitioners, and which
they say they desire to argue, are in
fact involved in the determination OF
the case, as it appears on the face oi
the records we deny.
The decision OF the court was unan-
imous.
SsNATWu M. tn SAWS,